[Yang Lihui] Community-centered

Abstract: As a key word in the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection Engineering System,"community" refers to people who directly or indirectly participate in the implementation and inheritance of a certain intangible cultural heritage project or a certain series of intangible cultural heritage projects, and identify with the series.) Intangible cultural heritage projects are part of their cultural heritage.

Communities can be large or small in scale, are characterized by non-fixed and heterogeneous, and can be understood and defined by different people in different ways in different contexts.

The community and the groups and individuals that make up the community are the main body of the protection and inheritance of intangible cultural heritage projects.

They should not only participate to the greatest extent possible, from the identification of intangible cultural heritage projects, compilation of lists, planning and implementation of protection measures to the application of intangible cultural heritage projects to enter various directories.

The entire process should also play a major role in it, become the center of all protection measures and plans, and become the beneficiaries of intangible cultural heritage projects after they are included in the list.

Keywords: community; UNESCO; intangible cultural heritage protection; subject

"Community") is undoubtedly a key word in the intangible cultural heritage protection engineering system launched by UNESCO (hereinafter referred to as UNESCO)-in this system, from the identification of "intangible cultural heritage"(hereinafter referred to as "intangible cultural heritage"), the entire process of preparation of lists, planning and implementation of protection measures, to applying for entry into various lists, all emphasize "maximum possible participation of the community", advocating "community, Groups or individuals should be placed at the center of all conservation measures and plans "at the centre of all safeguarding measures and plans), arguing that" relevant communities, groups and individuals should play the primary role in protecting the intangible cultural heritage they hold." So, what exactly is a "community"? What important status does it have in the intangible cultural heritage policy? Why does UNESCO emphasize the importance of communities so much? How does the community participate in various processes of intangible cultural heritage protection? What successful community participation experiences have States parties achieved so far?...

These issues are undoubtedly worthy of serious discussion by intangible cultural heritage researchers and practitioners engaged in intangible cultural heritage protection from countries around the world.

As far as the author's limited vision is concerned, there have been some international academic research results to discuss the significance of communities from within UNESCO's intangible cultural heritage policy system, mainly focusing on the meaning and boundaries of "community" and community participation in intangible cultural heritage protection.

Practical experience, as well as reflection on UNESCO's community-related policies, while domestic relevant research is still relatively rare.

Overall, compared with the importance of communities, research in this area obviously needs to be deepened urgently.

This article attempts to base on UNESCO's Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention") and some of its derivative documents, and combine the author's experience and thoughts as one of UNESCO's Intangible Cultural Heritage Review Bodies-China Folk Culture Society-A member of the Intangible Cultural Heritage review expert team, who participated in the Intangible Cultural Heritage review work twice in 2015 and 2016, to elaborate on the importance of the community in UNESCO's Intangible Cultural Heritage policy.

In addition, in January 2011, as an observer in China, the author also participated in the entire process of "Strengthening National Capabilities for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage·Strengthening National Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection Capabilities·Training of Trainers Workshop" organized by UNESCO in Beijing.

During the five-day training, I studied in depth the spirit of the Convention and its interpretation of many key words including "community".

The training documents explain many proprietary terms in detail, and provide a large number of explanations and further discussions on the concise and comprehensive vocabulary expressions in the Convention, which plays an important supplementary role in the correct understanding of the Convention and its derivative documents.

Therefore, this article will also be cited and analyzed appropriately.

It is hoped that this article can enrich and supplement existing relevant research, and also have certain reference and promotion significance for the local practice of intangible cultural heritage protection in China.

Community-centered approach: the place of communities in the Convention and its derivatives

As mentioned earlier, the Convention and its various derivative documents all emphasize the importance of communities in the entire process of intangible cultural heritage protection.

In my opinion, its importance is mainly reflected in the following aspects:

First, community recognition.

Among the criteria for identifying intangible cultural heritage, communities are placed in a crucial position.

As we all know, the definition of "intangible cultural heritage" in the Convention is as follows: "'Intangible cultural heritage 'refers to various social practices and conceptual expressions that are regarded as part of their cultural heritage by communities, groups, and sometimes individuals., forms of expression, knowledge, skills and related tools, objects, handicrafts and cultural venues.

This intangible cultural heritage is passed down from generation to generation and is constantly recreated as communities and groups adapt to their surrounding environment and interact with nature and history, providing these communities and groups with a sense of identity and continuity, thereby enhancing cultural diversity.

Respect for human creativity.

In this Convention, only intangible cultural heritage that conforms to existing international human rights documents, the need for mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and that conforms to sustainable development are considered." This definition establishes five criteria for the identification of intangible cultural heritage: 1.

The heritage project is included in "social practices, conceptual expressions, forms of expression, knowledge, skills and related tools, objects, handicrafts and cultural venues";2.

The heritage project is "regarded by communities, groups, and sometimes individuals as part of their cultural heritage";3.

The heritage project is "passed down from generation to generation and is constantly recreated as communities and groups adapt to their surrounding environment and interact with nature and history";4.

The heritage project "provides a sense of identity and continuity to these communities and groups";5.

The heritage project "conforms to existing international human rights documents, the need for mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and conforms to sustainable development." Among these five standards, the recognition of "communities, groups, and sometimes individuals" has become an important criterion for whether a project can be recognized as intangible cultural heritage.

In other words, a community, group or inheritor determines whether a particular practice or tradition forms part of its cultural heritage, and has the right to decide whether a particular practice or expression is important to its sense of identity and continuity.

Only through their confirmation can a specific practice or tradition be selected from general cultural heritage and become intangible cultural heritage.

Correspondingly, in the process of reviewing the application forms for the list of representatives and the application forms for the list of urgently needed protection submitted by each State party, the experts of the review agency also reviewed the intangible cultural heritage items described in accordance with these five standards.

Whether the application form clearly and fully describes and proves the identification of the community has become a basic basis for determining whether the item can be included in the list.

Second, community participation and prior informed consent.

The Convention emphasizes the need to maintain maximum community participation throughout the entire protection process, including identification, inventory preparation, planning and implementation of protection measures, and application for entry into various lists.) This has become a principle often mentioned when the Convention and its derivative documents emphasize the importance of communities: "When carrying out activities to protect intangible cultural heritage, States parties shall strive to ensure the maximum participation of communities, groups and sometimes individuals that create, continue and inherit such heritage, and to engage them actively in relevant management." The "Memorandum on Filling out the Application Form for the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity"(hereinafter referred to as the "Memorandum") even stated: "Among all the topics that the Committee and its affiliated and review bodies are concerned about, no topic is more concerned than communities, groups or Individuals 'maximum participation in the protection of intangible cultural heritage has attracted more attention." Echoing this principle, UNESCO requires States parties to not only reflect extensive community participation when applying for various lists, but also ensure that communities have "free, prior and informed consent to the nomination".

States parties must provide written, audio-visual or other forms to prove the community's prior knowledge and consent.

The "Operational Guidelines for Implementation"(hereinafter referred to as the "Operational Guidelines") clearly stipulates that whether it is the list of intangible cultural heritage in urgent need of protection, the list of representative works of human intangible cultural heritage, or the list of excellent practices, an important criterion is that the application of the heritage project "has the broadest possible participation of the relevant communities, groups or individuals, respects their wishes, and has their prior informed consent." Because of this, in the "List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Urgent Need of Protection·ICH-01 Table" and the "Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity·ICH-02 Table", the inclusion criteria in Articles 4 U.4 and R.4) are both "community participation and consent during the application process." According to this standard, States parties should confirm that "the declaration of the heritage project has the broadest possible participation of the relevant community, group or individual, respecting their wishes, and with their prior informed consent." This article is subdivided into four aspects, the first two aspects are directly related to community participation and awareness, and are helpful to understanding "community participation and awareness" at various stages of the application process.

The bold character added by the author):

Participation of relevant communities, groups and individuals in the application process

Describe how relevant communities, groups or individuals actively participated in all stages of the preparation and preparation of application materials.

States parties are encouraged to prepare application materials with the extensive participation of all relevant parties, including local governments at all levels, communities, non-governmental organizations, research institutions, professional centers and other relevant parties.

Respect their wishes in the declaration and obtain their prior informed consent

The declaration of the heritage project respects the wishes of the community, group or individual concerned, with their prior informed consent, either in written or audio-visual form, or in other ways consistent with the State party's legal system and the rich diversity of the communities and groups concerned.

prove it...

It can be seen that during the application stage, the principle of community participation requires that relevant communities, groups or individuals "actively participate in all stages of preparing and preparing application materials", respect their wishes during the application, and obtain their prior informed consent.

Relatively speaking, the requirements for community participation are easier to understand, but how can it be regarded as community "prior informed consent"? How to practice this requirement? The 2011 "Workshop Document" further supplemented the above points when talking about "the role of the community in protection":"When a declaration for a certain intangible cultural heritage project-including the planning of protection measures-is related to When a community, group or individual is involved, they must give-freely and voluntarily-consent to the preparation and submission of the declaration.

They should be given sufficient information and time to make decisions and be properly informed of the possible benefits and any possible negative impacts of inclusion.

Without their informed consent, the preparation of the declaration should not take place and should not be submitted to UNESCO." It can be seen that obtaining informed consent from the community is not just a simple matter of having the community, group or individual representative sign a statement.

Before that, the community should be given "sufficient information and time to make a decision, and be properly informed of the possible benefits and any possible negative impacts" after inclusion.

These are the more important work content of this link.

Correspondingly, when review agencies and independent review experts review various application forms, whether the community's extensive participation and prior informed consent can be fully demonstrated is another important factor in judging whether an intangible cultural heritage project meets the inclusion criteria.

dimension.

It may be necessary to mention here in passing: In the two intangible cultural heritage reviews that the China Folk Culture Society has participated in so far (2015 and 2016), one of the tasks with the largest workload is often to review whether the application forms reflect and comply with the principles of "community participation" and "community prior informed consent"(U.4, R.4, P.5).

A declaration that cannot prove the community's active participation and prior informed consent in the protection and declaration process may fail the entire declaration by failing to meet this standard.

Many applications involving many communities and groups will include dozens of pages or even hundreds of pages of community informed consent.

Third, be community-centered.

The importance of a community goes beyond its broad participation and prior informed consent.

In many derivative documents of the Convention, the community is placed in a more important position-in the process of declaring and formulating protection measures, the community, group or individual is regarded as a key subject and plays a central role in the process.

Sexual role, while intangible cultural heritage protection that ignores the subjectivity of the community and carries out top-down protection is clearly denied.

At the Eighth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee, held in Baku, Azerbaijan, December 2 - 7, 2013, the Intergovernmental Committee called on States parties to "place communities, groups, and sometimes individuals, at the center of all protection measures and plans, avoid top-down approaches, and recognize approaches that emerge from communities, groups, and sometimes individuals." The first article of the "Ethical Principles for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" adopted at the 10th Ordinary Session from November 30 to December 4, 2015, Windhoek, Namibia clearly stated: "Relevant communities, groups and Individuals should play a major role in protecting the intangible cultural heritage they hold."

Why should intangible cultural heritage protection work be community-centered and communities should play a major role in it? The memorandum explains this issue: "The specific participation of States parties is important, but the advisory body also warns that excessive reliance on the state will gradually undermine the success and sustainability of the proposed protection measures." In the opinion of the advisory body, protective measures "should not only consist of top-down, centrally initiated, and relying on government support-these are often short-lived; on the contrary, long-term community participation and full-time participation by the main body will bring more lasting sustainability than protection measures supported solely by the government." The advisory body disagrees with some practices that highlight the government everywhere in the declaration form and rarely show the participation of community entities, believing that this endangers sustainability.

It can be seen that UNESCO adheres to the principle of "community-centered" because it believes that only when the community participates to the greatest extent in the entire process of protection and plays a major role in it can intangible cultural heritage protection be carried out sustainably and effectively.

Unfortunately, as pointed out in the Memorandum, some States parties "often lack understanding and awareness" of the importance of communities in development and protection plans."Community members are often only regarded as information providers or beneficiaries, and are rarely regarded as key actors in planning and implementing protection measures." This point also requires vigilance and improvement by governments at all levels and cultural management departments in China.

Fourth, the community benefits.

In the "Memorandum" and "Business Guidelines", it has been stated many times that the protection and sustainable development of intangible cultural heritage projects should make the community the beneficiary.

For example, the memorandum mentions that the Intergovernmental Committee and its subsidiary bodies and review bodies "emphasize the importance of community participation in the development of conservation measures, so that the communities concerned-not states or private enterprises-are beneficiaries of inclusion on the list and the increasing attention it brings." When discussing possible commercialization and its double-edged sword effects during listing and protection, the Operational Guidelines specifically clearly stipulate that the results should benefit communities: "Certain forms of commercial activities that may originate from intangible cultural heritage, as well as trade in cultural goods and services related to intangible cultural heritage, can raise awareness of such heritage and its importance and bring benefits to its practitioners." These commercial activities help communities that inherit and practice this heritage improve living standards, boost local economies, and enhance social cohesion.

However, such activities and trade should not endanger the survival of intangible cultural heritage, and all appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that the communities concerned become the main beneficiaries." In 2015, the "Ethical Principles for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" adopted at the 10th Ordinary Session of the Intergovernmental Committee reiterated the principle of the importance of communities repeatedly emphasized by the Convention from multiple perspectives, including Article 7 stipulates: "Communities, groups or individuals that create intangible cultural heritage shall benefit from the protection of the spiritual and material interests derived from such heritage, especially the use, research, documentation, promotion or adaptation of it by community members or others."

The above four aspects embody the community principles in the Convention and its various derivative documents.

So, why does UNESCO emphasize so much the importance of communities in the process of intangible cultural heritage protection? After reviewing various relevant documents, we can find that this point was clearly stated at the beginning of the Convention: "Recognize that communities, especially indigenous peoples, groups, and sometimes individuals, play an important role in the production, protection, continuation and re-creation of intangible cultural heritage, thereby contributing to the enrichment of cultural diversity and human creativity." In the 2011 "Workshop Document", this issue was specifically discussed and explained in more detail.

The reasons given are as follows:

Intangible cultural heritage is enforced and passed down by people (communities, groups and individuals), and is recognized by them as part of their cultural heritage;

Intangible cultural heritage is part of the collective heritage of the group, whether it is identified or regarded as a community, group, or in some cases individuals;

Protection involves ensuring that intangible cultural heritage is practiced and passed down continuously within the group of people and through the group of people's communities, groups and individuals;

Therefore, protection cannot occur without the consent and involvement of the community, group and individuals of the population).

To sum up, the Convention and its derivative documents clearly express the concept that communities, groups or individuals are the key subjects in the production, identification, protection, continuation and recreating of intangible cultural heritage, and the purpose of protection is to ensure that intangible cultural heritage can continue to be practiced and passed on within and through this group of people.

Therefore, the community should undoubtedly become the center of intangible cultural heritage protection policies.

Instability and heterogeneity: The definition of "community"

Since UNESCO emphasizes the importance of communities so much, the next question is: What exactly is a "community"? This question is difficult to answer, because basic documents such as the Convention and the Operational Guide do not directly define this crucial concept.

The final report of the "Expert Meeting on Community Participation in the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" held in Tokyo, Japan in March 2006 pointed out at the beginning that "the Convention does not provide a definition of 'community' and 'group'." When talking about the definition of the keyword "community", the 2011 workshop document also admitted: "The general principles of the Convention say: 'Recognize that communities, especially indigenous peoples, groups, and sometimes individuals, play an important role in the production, protection, continuation and re-creation of intangible cultural heritage, thereby contributing to the enrichment of cultural diversity and human creativity.' None of the above terms are defined in this part of the Convention."

However, despite this, the workshop document still gave some limitations when elaborating on "key words in the Convention":"Under the framework of the Convention, relevant 'communities, groups or individuals' refer to those people): They directly or indirectly participate in the practice or inheritance of a certain intangible cultural heritage project or a series of intangible cultural heritage projects and consider that the intangible cultural heritage project is part of their cultural heritage.

These terms are often used in the Business Guide, and on some occasions,'tradition bearers' and 'practitioners' are also used to refer to those who have specific responsibilities for the implementation and inheritance of intangible cultural heritage in a community or group." "When the Convention refers to 'communities, groups and individuals', it refers to those who participate in the practice and inheritance of intangible cultural heritage projects and regard them as part of their cultural heritage.

Communities are difficult to define abstractly, but in this context, they are people who directly or indirectly participate in the implementation and inheritance of relevant intangible cultural heritage projects.

"The bold is added by the author)

In our usual understanding, although a community can be large or small, it is often a physical space with relatively clear geographical boundaries, such as "Beijing City" or "Huguo Temple Community." This understanding is inconsistent with the spirit of UNESCO.

Judging from the definition quoted above, the community does not refer to geographical space, but to practitioners of intangible cultural heritage.

Moreover, it includes not only direct practitioners of intangible cultural heritage, but also people who indirectly implement and inherit intangible cultural heritage.

In other words, the audience of an intangible cultural heritage project that is not the direct inheritor is also a part of the community.

In March 2006, the "Expert Meeting on Community Participation in the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" held in Tokyo already debated this issue: some experts believe that the definition of community should focus on direct practitioners of intangible cultural heritage, while others believe that the community should also include those who are related to intangible cultural heritage but are not active practitioners.

So, why is the key concept of "community" not defined in the Convention? The workshop documents specifically explain this: "One of the many reasons for the lack of formal definition is that it is difficult to define a community-just like intangible cultural heritage, related communities and groups are mobile.

The concepts of community and group can also be understood in different political contexts and by different people in different ways...

In 2002 - 2003, the experts who drafted the text of the Convention were happy to leave these concepts open, not least because of the objective issues mentioned above.

If they tried to define these concepts, they might not be able to complete the draft Convention in 2003-or even in 2005.

Most countries have cultural and ethno-linguistic diversity, and each country treats its diversity differently.

Some countries, often highly concentrated ones, focus on the intensive process of nation-building or ethnic unity and have no interest in outsiders or a Convention) prescribing how they define and respond to communities and/or groups.

Some countries recognize indigenous communities), while others do not.

Countries that have just come through a difficult period of domestic problems prefer to focus on general recognition rather than internal differences." It can be seen that the community is not defined because, in UNESCO's view, it involves very complex realities and understandings of diversity and is difficult to generalize.

But in any case, the characteristics of a community that can be identified are that they are not fixed and homogeneous.

They "can be defined based on administrative, geographical, ethno-linguistic or other criteria." People can thus belong to different communities at the same time.

People's identification with their communities and groups is first and foremost determined by themselves.

They can define their community or group based on many factors, such as their language, a specific intangible cultural heritage, or a series of specific intangible cultural heritage." In the Convention,"People in a group or community may have different roles when expressing their intangible cultural heritage, such as practitioners, custodians, inheritors, or listeners." Some intangible cultural heritage groups are small and clearly defined, such as a group of practitioners of a special healing tradition or craftsmanship, or a family of puppeteers).

At a given time, only one individual can be included.

Other groups are larger and less clearly defined, including town residents celebrating Carnival, festival goers, community members participating in rituals-who are happy to contribute to these events as part of their experience and practice their cultural heritage, and to feel a sense of community)." "It is important to realize that as a principle, communities are not homogeneous, and within a community or group, there may be different opinions on the recognition and protection of intangible cultural heritage."

Here, we should also clarify the connection and differences between the communities, groups and individuals involved in the expressions "communities, groups or individuals" that repeatedly appear in the Convention and its derivative documents.

This is also not explained in the Convention and its basic documents.

In the 2011 workshop document, there was a specific explanation for this, which helped us understand such expressions: "The Convention also does not explain how to distinguish between communities and groups.

Some people interpret a group as people who make up a community or across communities (such as practitioners or inheritors) who have special knowledge of a particular project or have a special role in its performance and inheritance.

In some cases, individuals have a special role, such as practitioners or managers; often they are the only people left in a community who have the necessary knowledge and skills to practice a particular form of intangible cultural heritage." According to this explanation, the categories of individuals, groups and communities turn from small to large.

Individuals constitute groups and groups constitute communities.

However, in my opinion, the above explanation does not fully explain the difference between communities and groups, because, as quoted above, communities also refer to people who directly or indirectly participate in the implementation and inheritance of relevant intangible cultural heritage projects.

Therefore, there is no essential difference from the definition of "group".

Such vague concepts are not uncommon in UNESCO literature.

Below, this article will take the three intangible cultural heritage declarations in 2015 as individual cases to specifically examine the concept of "community" reflected in them.

Relevant application forms and review status can be found in the "Resolution of the Tenth Ordinary Session of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage", i.e.

10.

COM Resolution).

Case 1: Marula Festival in Namibia).

Marula is a plant.

Every year, when the fruit harvest is abundant, eight Aawambo communities in northern Namibia brew Marula fruit wine, sing and dance, and hold a 2 - 3-day celebration festival.

The festival is held in turn by eight communities, so the relevant communities involved in this intangible cultural heritage project are these eight Aawambo communities, and they have actively participated in the process of declaration and formulation of protection measures.

The project was finally successfully included in the list of representative works of mankind.

Case 2, Egypt's traditional Hand Puppetry), applied to be included in the Urgent Protection List.

This puppet art is usually performed by several artists in groups, especially at Mawled folk celebrations.

Later, the celebration gradually shrank, and the puppet performers had to settle down, and the number dropped to a few.

The relevant communities, groups and individuals involved in this intangible cultural heritage project should be puppet artists and their audiences who have toured and settled down in various places.

However, the "relevant communities, groups or individuals" filled in the application form are only six middle-aged and elderly folk artists.

The project was ultimately not approved.

One of the reasons for the rejection was that there was a problem with "community participation": although there were multiple forces involved in the application process, including practitioners and relevant stakeholders, the application only showed the presence of several puppet artists, which did not fully prove that the wider community was actively involved in the entire application process; moreover, traditional practitioners were more information providers than active partners in the process).

Case 3:"Aitysh/Aitys,art of impromptu creation" jointly declared by Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan).

Aytes is an impromptu oral poem that can be sung and spoken.

The performance is often accompanied by Dombula or Kyrgyz komuz.

It is widely circulated throughout Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

The performers--namely Akon--must improvise verse, use humorous and astute counterattack and philosophical reflection to debate current affairs and engage in intellectual confrontation.

The topics of the debate are often chosen by the audience.

The art is performed on many occasions, including local festivals and national events.

It has become widely popular among the public and has now become an important part of the culture of both countries.

The relevant communities, groups and individuals involved in the project mainly include the performers of Aittes (known as the "Akyns-Aityskers" in Kazakhstan and the "Tokmoakyns" in Kyrgyzstan)-and their groups, related research institutions and art schools, as well as all the people of both countries as audiences.

The project was also successfully included in the list of representative works of that year.

The above three cases clearly demonstrate the non-fixity, heterogeneity and great flexibility of the concept of "community" used in UNESCO's intangible cultural heritage engineering system: communities may be small in size and have clear boundaries, such as the eight Aawambo communities in northern Namibia that co-hosted the Majura Festival in Case 1, and the Egyptian puppet artists and their audiences in Case 2; Communities can also be large in size, spanning the actual boundaries of regions and countries.

For example, in case 3, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan formed a community based on a common identification of the art of Aytes impromptu creation, which includes not only the performers of the art and their representative groups, research institutions and art schools, but also the entire people of the two countries as audiences.

However, regardless of its size, the community refers to people who directly or indirectly participate in the implementation and inheritance of relevant intangible cultural heritage projects and recognize that the intangible cultural heritage project is part of its cultural heritage.

They constitute the main body of the protection and inheritance of intangible cultural heritage projects.

They should not only participate to the greatest extent in the entire protection process, but should also play a major role in it, becoming the center of all protection measures and plans and the beneficiaries after being included in the list.

(This article was published in "Northwest Ethnic Studies", No.

4, 2016.

See the original text for the annotations.)